Coaches recruit for the school. Hence why often on student-athlete bios it states "Susie was also recruited by Oregon, Colorado, Stanford, etc." The coach represents the school. That is why athletes sign a letter of intent to the school, not to the coach.
She does however work for a school that had a moral obligation to those students. And she chose not to honor that obligation.
Non-sequitur.
This has no bearing on the moral status of BAS's actions.
Therefore, this objection is irrelevant.
This is, in a literal sense, true.
Merely stating anything doesn't necessarily mean it is the case, simply because one stated it.
In this case however, your statements were non sequiturs. They had no relevance to the moral status of BAS's actions. And therefore, they were irrelevant.
No.
BAS's opinion of the moral status of her actions has no bearing on the moral status of her actions.
Therefore, this objection if irrelevant.
Their "attitude", which is merely voicing their disapproval of BAS's actions, is a result of BAS's actions. That is to say, if BAS hadn't done what she did, there would be no "attitude" to take umbrage with in the first place.
Therefore, this objection is irrelevant.